Graham Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Maybe old news, but I just saw this news from Janes: - AIR FORCES NEWS FOR WEEK ENDING 20 FEBRUARY 2004 US Air Force to buy STOVL variant of fighter The US Air Force (USAF) will buy the short take-off variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and upgrade a portion of its 30-year-old A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet in order to bolster the service's ability to provide support for ground forces, according to senior USAF leaders. [Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 13 February 2004] Personally I can't see the lame duck F-35 being much good in the close air support roll. I think it would be much better for the USAF to invest in upgrading the existing A-10 fleet or even having new A-10s built, with perhaps improved modern instrumentation and avionics. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I think you're mis-interpreting. What I've garnered from the limited info I've seen around, the JSF is going to be a more high-alt support (dropping precison guided munitions, like the eagle and Hornet do now), while the upgraded Hawgs are going to continue being the 100 foot high equivalent of a howitzer with balls of steel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The way I'm reading it is that the USAF will buy a handful of F-35B's (last I heard, between 30 and 35). They will also upgrade their A-10 fleet. Both of those actions will be to bolster the service's ability to provide ground support. I don't think you're supposed to read it as the USAF is buying F-35B's to replace the A-10. And what are they thinking? Well, they're thinking that the A-12 program was cancelled, and they still consider the F/A-22 the highest priority (despite the fact that they're going to buy less than 350 now), but they've got to do something. The F-35 is supposed to be cheap (due to economies of scale [between the USAF, Marines, Navy, and Royal Navy, over 3000 F-35s are on order], the fact that the F-35 uses many off the shelf electronics, and a lower development cost since the F-35 borrows from the F/A-22), so the USAF can use some of those, but no way can it do the job of the A-10, so the USAF will start upgrading the A-10 to keep it around for awhile longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isamu Atreides 86 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 the Hawgs kick ass. woe is the day the USAF takes them out of service. they should give them to the USMC. aren't MC pilots trained specifically in Close Support anyway? then the A-10 is the idea for getting down and dirty with the grunts.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 (edited) Nothing can replace the cannon the A-10 was built around. The plane can destroy anything, and can take one hell of a beating. It deserves to stick around. Edited February 24, 2004 by Anubis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 My mom is weapon systems manager for the A-10 she says they're not giving them up anytime soon. She told me the Air Force was planning on getting rid of them after Desert Storm. The Army wanted to take them so the Air Force decided to keep them. The real problem is that they've outlived thier 80,000 hour life expectancy and have developed cracks in the wings that are requiring an all new wing design. They're also making the cockpits night-vision compatible and upgrading the navigation systems. In the past Hog Drivers were navigating with binoculars and a map. At night in the dark that can be quite tricky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 (edited) My mom is weapon systems manager for the A-10 she says they're not giving them up anytime soon. She told me the Air Force was planning on getting rid of them after Desert Storm. The Army wanted to take them so the Air Force decided to keep them. The real problem is that they've outlived thier 80,000 hour life expectancy and have developed cracks in the wings that are requiring an all new wing design. They're also making the cockpits night-vision compatible and upgrading the navigation systems. In the past Hog Drivers were navigating with binoculars and a map. At night in the dark that can be quite tricky. That's what depot maintenance is for. They had a similar NVIS system to what our Block 40 F-16's were getting. Edited February 24, 2004 by Anubis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 My mom is weapon systems manager for the A-10 she says they're not giving them up anytime soon. She told me the Air Force was planning on getting rid of them after Desert Storm. The Army wanted to take them so the Air Force decided to keep them. The real problem is that they've outlived thier 80,000 hour life expectancy and have developed cracks in the wings that are requiring an all new wing design. They're also making the cockpits night-vision compatible and upgrading the navigation systems. In the past Hog Drivers were navigating with binoculars and a map. At night in the dark that can be quite tricky. That's what depot maintenance is for. They had a similar NVIS system to what our Block 40 F-16's were getting. They've got a program stated called "HOG-UP" to take care of it but the bureaucrats keep screwing them on the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 any upgrades for air to air self defense? Yes I know its a CAS and mainly ground attacker so dont school me I know...just wondering since its got sidewinders will it be upgradded to carry amraams? WAit if the a-10 dont got radar...can it depend on another plane to provide radar guidance? OH well. I always had the feeling the A-10 could turn and burn close to the ground with fighters since its a steriahgt wing and its got a huge cannon and sidewinders. I guess the upgrades could also be updated mavericks or GPS bombs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 any upgrades for air to air self defense? Yes I know its a CAS and mainly ground attacker so dont school me I know...just wondering since its got sidewinders will it be upgradded to carry amraams? WAit if the a-10 dont got radar...can it depend on another plane to provide radar guidance? OH well. I always had the feeling the A-10 could turn and burn close to the ground with fighters since its a steriahgt wing and its got a huge cannon and sidewinders. I guess the upgrades could also be updated mavericks or GPS bombs. I can ask but I think the imphasis is in the pilot interface and GPS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechamaniac Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I'll never forget the first time I heard the sound of an A-10 Vulcan from some distance away. I literally stopped dead in my tracks and asked WTF was that??? It sounded like the croak of a 4 ton giant toad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarensaas Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Bye bye Commanche, hello SuperHogs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I'll never forget the first time I heard the sound of an A-10 Vulcan from some distance away. I literally stopped dead in my tracks and asked WTF was that???It sounded like the croak of a 4 ton giant toad. I got to call in some strikes in the first gulf war. The freaky thing is that you don't hear it until after the target is in flames. I always likened the sound to a giant chainsaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 (edited) Opus---sure it's 8,000 hours, not 80,000? 80,000 is beyond insanely high for anything like a strike aircraft. Lots of military planes "get old" at 5-10 thousand. Anyways----they've pretty much accepted that the F-35 will need a gunpod to make it useful in many situations, using up one of its weapon bays. Harrier legacy, but at least the current Harrier has a good gun, though it's no Avenger. Sigh---Marines are #1 for CAS, yet they're always last to be consulted/least imput into the planes used for it! Yeesh. At this point, most of the Harrier's smart weapons are USMC-exclusive variations of USN and USAF weapons, specially designed for CAS from a STOVL jet. Yet approximately ZERO will work with the F-35. See a problem? JDAM's about the only weapon that'll work, and JDAM is NOT what you want for Marine CAS. Not accurate enough, not able to be quickly updated/targeted. You need the AGM-65E, the lesser-known but awesome variant of your standard Maverick. Which won't fit in an F-35, AFAIK. (Seeing as how its big and bulky) As for A-10 self defense---they rely mainly on MASSIVE amounts of chaff and flares. Plus being just plain hard to kill. They have little IR signature, but their radar return I bet is huge. A-10's are much more likely to "dogfight" with a helicopter than a fighter. THAT is the environment they would use their Sidewinders in. Or a light attack plane, A-4 category. A-10's have awesome rates and radii of turn, but that's for avoiding ground fire quickly, not a prolonged dogfight. They have zilch in the energy category. Edited February 24, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Opus---sure it's 8,000 hours, not 80,000? 80,000 is beyond insanely high for anything like a strike aircraft. Lots of military planes "get old" at 5-10 thousand. You could be right. It's been a long time since we talked about it. I have to go to my moms house tomorrow anyway so find out some more info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Hey can teh F-35B even be a good successor to the Harrier? I remember thinking maybe its good to be more manueverable and supersonic but then I read this and now think...man this commanility crap i thjoguth it ended in the 60s! Anyhoo. Perhaps rockets and cluster bombs? Can those be used on the F-35B? How about snakey eye mk 82 retarded bombs? Sure technical this technical that but CAS pilots gotta be prepared to do it the hold fashioned way and not rely on radar or laser guidance. Also does it seem to anyhone that this commonality crap is forcing the JSF down the throats of some services? Sure its got the advantage of being cheap and common but theres bound to be disatvantages too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 They may have new missles/bombs in the queue to go with the new jet. There is all kinds of new stuff planned for the air-to-air category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 How does the F-35 square off against the Yak-141? From what I remember reading the Harrier had supirior range, firepower, and agility compared to the Yak-141, with the 141 surpassing the Harrier only in raw power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 8000 hours sounds rather low. I could be wrong, but that would suggest that most military aircraft have a service life of 333 days. Using 80,000 would make that 9 years which sounds more reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 (edited) F-35 will be "overall" better than the Harrier, mainly due to range. Harrier has sh*t for range, and sh*t for payload, though payload has gone up as the plane's evolved. While the F-35 doesn't have much payload, it's more than a Harrier's. Mainly due to engine power. F-35's got twice the power of a Harrier--and it's all for fuel and weapons, the plane itself isn't *that* much larger. The thing is---the F-35 will be best at replacing what the Harrier does least well. It's like replacing the Harrier with an F-16--much more useful for most things overall, but not all that great at doing what the Harrier does best. Harrier is REALLY in it's element for CAS. Slow, accurate, AGM-65E's, gunpods. It is NOT supposed to go after tanks, troops, and most everything else. It's a purely USMC plane, pretty much purely for USMC troop support. F-35 isn't that. Everyone says "it'll be stealthy and fast and manueverable and have auto-laser-smart everything". Yeah well, that's what F/A-22's are for. Harriers are for forward STOVL bases about right behind the front lines, ready to take out whatever the Marines need taken out within 5 mins. They are, honestly, designed to maul and decimate moving enemy troops up close and personal. A-10's and Harrier's rock at it. (Which is why everybody says the A-10's should go to the Marines) Slow, with powerful guns and Mavericks. F-35's are none of the above. Harriers do of course "blow stuff up" but that's not really their element, more of a "if they're in the right place at the right time, they can do it as well as anything else". However--they want the F-35 to replace just about every plane in the world except other stealths and strategic bombers. And it can't. Sigh---the F-111 fiasco (aka McNamara's folly) comes to mind in an instant to all aviation people when talking about commonality, ESPECIALLY across services. But politicians never remember, they only hear "1 plane to do everything costs less than 2 specialized". I'd laugh my a** off if the F-35 totally sucked at everything and we had to make F-16 Block 60's instead. Beltane70---8,000 hours is HIGH for a fighter. Attack planes are exposed to less severe G's, but still I doubt they'd hit 10,000hrs. It's hours FLYING, not simply hours of existence. Most commercial airliners won't hit 80,000 hrs before scrapping, even 25 year old ones flying for UAL 24/7. Edited February 24, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berttt Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 However--they want the F-35 to replace just about every plane in the world except other stealths and strategic bombers. And it can't. Sigh---the F-111 fiasco (aka McNamara's folly) comes to mind in an instant to all aviation people when talking about commonality, ESPECIALLY across services. But politicians never remember, they only hear "1 plane to do everything costs less than 2 specialized". I'd laugh my a** off if the F-35 totally sucked at everything and we had to make F-16 Block 60's instead. Beltane70---8,000 hours is HIGH for a fighter. Attack planes are exposed to less severe G's, but still I doubt they'd hit 10,000hrs. It's hours FLYING, not simply hours of existence. Most commercial airliners won't hit 80,000 hrs before scrapping, even 25 year old ones flying for UAL 24/7. The RAAF is in the same boat here, the bean counters want to replace the F-111 and the F/A-18 HUG's that we have with less total numbers of F-35's, it doesn't really make sense to me. I remember when I was working with a RAAF Herc Squadron, that most of the C-130E's we had were at around 25000 hours +, some had more than other of course as every Squadron has it's Hanger Queen. Berttt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 It's all about the G's. Herc's tend not to hit 9G's very often. And that's why airliners last the longest of all, they rarely hit 2. Early Hornets can use up their airframe in 4,000 hrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The thing that dosen't really sit well with me on this whole 1 super-plane that can do any/everything mentality is that once these planes are in service is it possible that some flaw somewhere could show itself and cause the grounding of the entire F-35 force? And seeing as how many jobs that thing is supposed to have I'm guessing if it gets grounded for any reason a lot of people are 10ft in horsesh!t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Ya know the funny thing is the air force is actally the smart one here. Where as the navy and marines are using almost ALL F-35s aside from the navy having super hornets...the airforce is STILL keeping a LOT of F-15s and F-16ws as well as A-10s in service some till the 2030s. This is the first time I actually think the air force is doin the best and right thing(im a navy brat so sue me). And while I think the F-35 is decent..I still think its being shoved down everyoens throats for ease of use and cheapness. Its a replacement or the F-16 yet its not as manueverable nor as fast and has less payload and maybe less range than a block 60. Its a replae ment for normal F-18s and again lacks the power speed and payload. I used to think commonality was dead and it really should be. Watch if we go into the next war...pilots who fly non gunpod equipped JSFs will be saying'man we couida had him if we had a gun!" Much like vietnam F-4 vets who could have become aces so easily when the migs jumped them and showed yup RIGHT in front of them....20 mike mike would have nailed them in half but this was in the early 60s when guns equipped F4s were still nort in service. Commonality syucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Another "completely forgotten" basic lesson of air combat design: Go look at a F-35's cockpit (especially a STOVL variant), and tell me how much rearward vision the pilot has. Stealth is nothing if someone can fly right up behind you with 30mm cannons and shoot you full of holes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 lets see the f-35 (or the f-16) take punishment like this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 An A-10 crashed on the runway while I was at Osan. The front gear collapsed on landing. The gun barrel was scraped to a 45 degree angle almost. That was it. It was awesome to see in the hangar. They swapped the gear, swapped the gun, and it was back out again. Sorry if this has been covered before, but what is different about the Block 60 F-16's. I've seen 40's (with the LANTIRN Pods, these are what we had at Hill and Osan), and 50's (with the wild weasel stuff), but haven't read anything about the 60. New boxes, new engine, or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 (edited) Ya know the funny thing is the air force is actally the smart one here. Where as the navy and marines are using almost ALL F-35s aside from the navy having super hornets...the airforce is STILL keeping a LOT of F-15s and F-16ws as well as A-10s in service some till the 2030s. This is the first time I actually think the air force is doin the best and right thing(im a navy brat so sue me). And while I think the F-35 is decent..I still think its being shoved down everyoens throats for ease of use and cheapness. Its a replacement or the F-16 yet its not as manueverable nor as fast and has less payload and maybe less range than a block 60. Its a replae ment for normal F-18s and again lacks the power speed and payload. I used to think commonality was dead and it really should be. Watch if we go into the next war...pilots who fly non gunpod equipped JSFs will be saying'man we couida had him if we had a gun!" Much like vietnam F-4 vets who could have become aces so easily when the migs jumped them and showed yup RIGHT in front of them....20 mike mike would have nailed them in half but this was in the early 60s when guns equipped F4s were still nort in service. Commonality syucks. The way things have been going we won't see F-35's until 2020 anyway . They are still being finicky about buying the 22's like they are supposed to. Edited February 24, 2004 by Anubis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The block 60 falcons have a huge ass spine and more range and maybe upped avionics. The foreign version for israel is the F-16I. If anything itr looks bad ass. And the decision to not arm the F-35B/C with an internal cannon is so stupid. Didnt ANYONE LEARN from the phantom jocks in vietnam? jesus christ its vietnam all over again! Eventualy soemthing mgith happen where the F-22s are tangeled in a big as dogfight and the F-356s get suckered into one nad run out of sidewinders and asraams...stealth aint crap in a close in dogfight. Sheesh as if the lessopn could not be repeated once again.... the minute you orget what happens history repeats itself. This hoo ha ovver stealth...screw it lets go badck to the time when planes could whup ass and come back in one piece(yes i know for stealth the probability is much nhigher but i feel reliance on the damn thing is costing us taxpayers shitloads of money and at the same time is a bit overhyped dont ya think?). IM so glad the A-10 aint being phased out for a while that beast still got some fight left in her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Due to my extreme bias towards the A-10 and against the F-35 (JSF in general really, as well as stealth aircraft), and my relative expertice on the A-10, will make only the following comment. The USAF higher ups are a bunch of stupid %#$#$@#@$@#%#%#@$@#%#%#%#%#%@$@#%_+_(_*(_()(_(_ Morons if they think that POS JSF can even come close to filling any nitch in the CAS role. I will stop myself now before I go into a rant, a rant that will surely include foul language my getting my posting privilages suspended. Sorry but I am passionate about discussions involving garbage airplanes trying and failing and the CAS role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I think you're mis-interpreting. What I've garnered from the limited info I've seen around, the JSF is going to be a more high-alt support (dropping precison guided munitions, like the eagle and Hornet do now), while the upgraded Hawgs are going to continue being the 100 foot high equivalent of a howitzer with balls of steel. As it should be. The only that can take a barrage of gunfire and can still accomplish it's mission and return home safely is the A-10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 (edited) Shin Densetsu: F-35's don't carry Sidewinders either. No AIM-9's, and no gun=NO dogfighting. So it's superior agility compared to the Harrier is worthless there. Anubis---F-16 Block 60's will likely have CFT's. Plus a lot of little things like the dorsal spine for more electronics (mainly ECM I think, probably some data-link stuff, etc). More powerful engine of course, GE and PW come out with new versions all the time. 32,500lbs on the latest GE. Possibly an integrated FLIR/LANTIRN combined with upgraded radar, to eliminate all the pods hanging off the intake like the 40's and 50's have. Greece already has block 50's with CFT's, being the last 50's built. UAE has block 60's without CFT's, but all the electronic upgrades. There likely won't be any USAF Block 60's, but if there are, you can bet on CFT's. F-16 CFT's hold 450 gallons. It's more to replace the underwing tanks rather than add range, so you can use more pylons for weapons. Finally--where's Nied? Edited February 24, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The way I'm reading it is that the USAF will buy a handful of F-35B's (last I heard, between 30 and 35). They will also upgrade their A-10 fleet. Both of those actions will be to bolster the service's ability to provide ground support. I don't think you're supposed to read it as the USAF is buying F-35B's to replace the A-10.And what are they thinking? Well, they're thinking that the A-12 program was cancelled, and they still consider the F/A-22 the highest priority (despite the fact that they're going to buy less than 350 now), but they've got to do something. The F-35 is supposed to be cheap (due to economies of scale [between the USAF, Marines, Navy, and Royal Navy, over 3000 F-35s are on order], the fact that the F-35 uses many off the shelf electronics, and a lower development cost since the F-35 borrows from the F/A-22), so the USAF can use some of those, but no way can it do the job of the A-10, so the USAF will start upgrading the A-10 to keep it around for awhile longer. Original A-12 program became the SR-71, the most recscent A-12 was the Avenger, a Naval Aircraft program, NOT USAF, designed to be a stealth replacement for the A-6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 (edited) A-6! I remember that "tadpole" looking plane anywhere! Did they continue the progam that will replace the "tadpole"? Shin Densetsu: F-35's don't carry Sidewinders either. No AIM-9's, and no gun=NO dogfighting. So it's superior agility compared to the Harrier is worthless there. So what can it carry? I suppose this won't replace the tomcat & the super hornet? Edited February 24, 2004 by Angel's Fury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imode Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 (edited) And the decision to not arm the F-35B/C with an internal cannon is so stupid. Didnt ANYONE LEARN from the phantom jocks in vietnam? jesus christ its vietnam all over again! Eventualy soemthing mgith happen where the F-22s are tangeled in a big as dogfight and the F-356s get suckered into one nad run out of sidewinders and asraams...stealth aint crap in a close in dogfight. Sheesh as if the lessopn could not be repeated once again.... The world is a very different place now. Back then US and the USSR were neck and neck. Communists were dogging us at every turn. Now, there are very few countries who can muster any sort of air based defense against an aerial assault from US forces and more often than not, they are our allies. Nowadays, pilots are mainly afraid of SAM's as they are much cheaper than maintaining an air force. Dog-fighting has gone the way of the do-do, and thus an internal cannon (to a high-altitude fighter) is pretty much the thing of the past. The hoo-haa over stealth is IMO very smart. I'm not sure of the cost of a SAM vs. the cost of an airplane but I'm sure you can buy a whole lot of missiles for the price of one MiG-29. Okay, based on this webpage a single sparrow costs $170,000. An F-35 which is moderately cheap, costs $40,000,000. Now say I bought $40,000,000 worth of sparrows inside of a single F-35. With the price of one airplane, I could potentially shoot down 235. Hell, throw in another $40 million and I could take out the entire United States air force. Stealth works. Why do you think an F-117 is so good at what it does? If you still think aerial encounters at close range still take place, you've been watching too much Macross. Edited February 24, 2004 by imode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.